Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday June 13, 2014 @12:06PM
from the also-every-other-type-of-voter dept.

theodp writes: "We are excited to announce that FWD.us and Hackers/Founders are joining forces to host the 'DEBUG DC' Growthathon on June 21st & June 22nd," reads the blog over at FWD.us, the PAC whose Founders and Major Contributors include current and former CEOs from Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL, and LinkedIn. "This is a unique opportunity to push the envelope in online advocacy for immigration reform." The blog entry explains, "The machine of government is wedged, and is in desperate need of debugging. How do we DEBUG DC? Step One: Target critical legislative districts. Step Two: Data mine these districts to find registered voters who are registered Republicans who we think are likely to support immigration reform. Step Three: Growth hack ways to motivate these people to effectively engage their legislators to tell them they want them to call for a vote on immigration reform. Step Four: Measure results. Step Five: Iterate." The Eventbrite invitation for the event includes a call for Data Scientists who are "pissed off about immigration and want to fix it," are "well versed in statistics and data analysis," and can "infer voter sentiment from sparse data." So, how does this jibe with the outrage expressed by the FWD.us supporters' companies over unauthorized government surveillance?

In their defense, Bush Jr. didn't run on the platform of increasing surveillance and decreasing government transparency. For the second term he run on a solid platform of FUD and even many non-GOP voters bought into it.

Further in their defense, TP is a delayed reaction to Bush actions. Sure, it is largely counter-productive, ineffective, lacking concrete goals and so on, but if you are objective you can't claim they are not trying to do something about this.

Only if they recognize that is the case, though. Humans are very quick to believe anything which fits nicely into their established view of the world, or the view they prefer to favor. They need to find the points which resonate. For the GOP, that would mean access to cheap labor, reduced taxes (say, for nanny/personal services), etc.

Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

Where do you get the idea the average GOP voter "strongly values privacy?" These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

You're both painting with broad brushes. And I suspect the data mining about which this article talks would help sort that out.

These are generally the same people who are A-OK with NSA surveillance because it's about catchin' terrrist evil-doers and if you ain't got nuthin' to hide you ain't got nuthin' ta fear.

Thats actually not true at all [gallup.com] (democrats actually approve of the NSA spying more than republicans), but at least you were able to continue the fine slashdot tradition of baseless, unsubstantiated strawmen.

I will bet one Internet that as soon as a Republican President is put in charge of NSA surveillance those poll numbers will flip overnight. As long as the guy from the other party is doing X, X is bad. When its your bastard doing it, X is suddenly good.

You average GOP voter strongly values privacy and will not look kindly at this kind of targeted approach.

Your average [either party] voter is already mined and targeted at _every_ election, whether they know/like it or not. And somehow there hasn't been a revolt. The difference in this particular effort is really just the story's presence on Slashdot.

In my experience the average GOP voter only cares about their own privacy, they actively support the invasion of everyone elses privacy and fully support the NSA spy apparatus without question. On the other hand there is a VERY small fraction of the GOP (Rand Paul is one) that is against this, but they are heavily ridiculed by the main party for this stance.

Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fac

It gets better; when they asked whether people approved of Snowden's leak, 49% of Republicans thought it was right, vs 39% of Democrats. And really, this fits in line with the traditional Republican fear of large, expansive government

Seriously, are all you blind GOP supporters that blind to what the rest of the party believes and is in fact their official party stance?

Seriously, are you that blind that you form your opinions based on internet echo chambers rather actual fact?

Not just the GOP voter. What about your average American citizen working in the IT industry? This is a blatant slap in the face in that what they really want are H1Bs for cheap labor. Backfire? Oh yeah, with both left and right barrels!

For every Cantor that deservingly got tossed out, there are many that managed to outspend and keep their seats.

What more concerning is that unlimited money could buy unlimited influence. When average candidate has to spend this kind of crazy money to get elected, then donors are in position to dictate policy. Damage of Citizen's United is not money flowing into politics, but giving more opportunities for money to corrupt politics. Why create a situation where politician has to make a choice between voting in the best interest of constituents and keeping re-election funding?

What more concerning is that unlimited money could buy unlimited influence.

Clearly false, not only in the sense that there is no such thing as "unlimited money", but that there is also a hard limit to the amount of influence money can buy, no matter how much funds you spend to trying it.

The fact is, regardless of what you believe, grassroots can beat money every time. I have other examples, but the Cantor one is excellent. I was involved with that, and we actually started the effort to oust Cantor five years ago. We presented Cantor some minor challenges along the way (which at least forced him to spend some of his considerable war chest on campaign efforts), but we never really had a good candidate until Brat came along. We had laid the groundwork at the grassroots level already. The platform Brat ran on was easy: He ran on the points in the Republican Party Creed, and he only needed to show how Cantor failed to follow it, point-by-point.

When average candidate has to spend this kind of crazy money to get elected, then donors are in position to dictate policy.

Candidates are supposed to represent their constituents, including the donors. In Brat's case, ALL of his money (the little of it he had) came from small donors and individuals. He should be accountable to them. In Cantor's case, he was beholden not to money from his district, but from large, national PACs, corporate donors, etc. It cost him his seat, and the money could not save him.

Why create a situation where politician has to make a choice between voting in the best interest of constituents and keeping re-election funding?

The only way to do that is to elect corrupt politicians. In fact, politicians never have to make that choice, because it's called bribery, quid-pro-quo, and corruption, and it's 100% illegal. As we have shown, many more times than this, the money does not help if you don't have support of the people. Buy all the votes you want, we'll make more.

>>>The only way to do that is to elect corrupt politicians. In fact, politicians never have to make that choice, because it's called bribery, quid-pro-quo, and corruption, and it's 100% illegal. As we have shown, many more times than this, the money does not help if you don't have support of the people. Buy all the votes you want, we'll make more.

I am always surprised when faced with cognitive dissonance of this magnitude. In one instance you recognize that "bribery, quid-pro-quo, and corrupti

Big leftist corporatism gets a pass. Because leftists aren't really against corporatism. Corporations and corporate power are just a bogeyman used to scare the rubes into giving away their money and their personal autonomy. But leftist corps will save you from the bogeymen. See the difference?

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

No, that seems quite impossible.

Fairness would mean that everyone get to go to the same schools and have the same healthcare, no matter how rich your parents are or where they were born. I cannot see how a republican would embrace that.

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

No, that seems quite impossible.

Fairness would mean that everyone get to go to the same schools and have the same healthcare, no matter how rich your parents are or where they were born. I cannot see how a republican would embrace that.

There's a difference between Egalitarianism and simple fairness.

Having the same schools, healthcare, etc is a egalitarianism.

Simple Fairness, however, dictates that things provided by the state be equal for all groups; but everything else is available if you want it and can afford it because you (in fairness) worked hard enough to earn it.

Or think of it this way - besides being born well off, in what way did those kids "work hard enough to earn" a nice school?

The kids didn't. Their parents worked hard enough to make sure they could put their kids in a nice school. Parents work hard to put their kids in a position to succeed. That's why houses with zoned for better schools are worth more, because the parents buying them are willing to pay more to make sure their kids have access to it.

Involved parents that care that much also lead to the schools themselves being better by donating to fund raisers, volunteering to help with school events, taking an interest in their kids school work and making sure it's getting done. Having your kids around other kids who care about their education because it's been instilled in them creates a culture of success (and vice versa).

As a parent, if you're kids are zoned for a school that you don't feel is doing as well you can do one of two things if you want to better enable your children:

1. You can get involved with the school, school board, organize parents and get the entire community more involved to make the school a better place for kids to succeed.2. You can send them to another school where people already are involved.

The ironic thing here is that the school voucher policy favored by conservatives would actually make it more feasible for people to send their kids to better schools without having to move for zoning reasons. This allows parents to cast a direct vote related to the quality of a school, because if it's bad parents will simply choose to send their kids elsewhere.

And "go to the same schools and have the same healthcare"? Nice to know you'd shut down the private school Barack Obama sends his kids to, and the expensive medical treatments rich Hollywood liberals get for themselves, including plastic surgery.

I'm all for education being as equal as possible, and randomized to ensure that the inequalities you can't get away from (like some teachers just are better than others) won't strike different groups disproportionately.

Elective surgery is a luxury, and not something I think anyone should be entitled to. I wouldn't be against putting a tax on elective surgery to cover the costs of reconstructive surgery for those who really need it, like victims of accidents or crimes without anyone to pay the costs.

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

I really struggle with this one. I'm sympathetic to lots of the arguments as to why illegal immigration is indefensible.

But many of those arguments seem to also argue for the native Americans' descendents getting back all of the land their ancestors held (modulo any tribe-to-tribe land grabs we can figure out historically), and that we should return to British rule.

The only arguments I'm left with are "it's our damn land now, and stop invading it or we'll kill you.". But that's nothing like a morally principled argument. And it does nothing to address the other issues I mentioned above regarding native Americans and the British.

One moral aspect I never see addressed is the tragic effect of draining Mexico, Central and South America of the youth that possess the courage and initiative necessary to act in their personal self interest. Immigrating to the US is a relief mechanism for the pressures of discontent that build in Mexico, South and Central America. If evacuating to the US wasn't an option I believe there would be better governments and better nations in place of the third world hell holes and cartel run kleptocracies we s

Is it possible that the average GOP voter doesn't like illegal immigration from a fairness perspective?

Irrelevant. The only people who count are the ones shoveling money to the Republicans, and they love the cheap labor that comes from illegal immigration. By contrast, Democratic money suppliers openly admit to liking illegal immigration. Isn't it nice to have a choice?

Your Average Democrat Voter sees more Democrat votes coming across the border, so they love the illegal immigrants. Crying "hate" is so much easier to gain votes than actually doing something. Don't get me wrong, both the DNC and the RNC love illegal immigrants, but for different reasons.

However, the disenfranchising of African Americans by creating another protected political class is going to hurt the DNC in the long run. The new influx of workers that will compete for low paying jobs is really going to h

Your Average Democrat Voter sees more Democrat votes coming across the border, so they love the illegal immigrants.

Isn't the only reason that they vote for Democrats is because the Republicans want to kick them out of the country? Aren't most Hispanic immigrants pretty conservative Christians? If so, the Republicans should be able to pick up a huge number of votes from them.

Actually, no, they are not. Hispanic Christians are dominantly liberal [pewforum.org], so a conversion of illegal immigrants to citizen status would increase the Democrat ranks, not the Republican ranks.

Immigration Reform is like asking Republicans to vote to lose every election forever. What is weird is that about 20% are saying yes to that.

I dont think these rich, tech executives are trying to reform illegal immigration from south of the border.

They are trying to reform immigration so they can import as many engineers as possible in to the U.S. from other countries.

You don't think most of them got rich by actually writing code did you?

They mostly get rich by hiring/funding engineers to write code for them. The more engineers they have to choose from the happier they are because they have more startups to choose from and they can suppress eng

Meh, I grew up in a very "red" part of the country, in a very conservative household, and I'd still consider myself pretty conservative -- with libertarian leanings.

Of course saying that the average GOP/conservative is against immigration is making a very large assumption, and painting with a wide brush. But despite the over the top verbiage about serfs and castles, is it wrong?

You do not see dyed in the wool lefties manning the southern border (unless it's to distribute first aid kits). Could it be that

Republicans/conservatives aren't against immigration...they're against illegal immigration and so are most legal immigrants. When politicians mention immigration reform what they are referring to is changing the rules so that if you make it to US soil without getting tagged out you get citizenship. Talk to an immigrant who followed the rules, studied, and achieved citizenship legally about those who try to cross into the country illegally and watch the righteous indignation explode from them. There is a pro

You're referring to Republican lawmakers, GP was referring to voters. One of my biggest complaints with Republican voters is that they say they support small government, but continue to vote for lawmakers who have been doing the opposite of small government since Reagan's first term.

Well, when Republican voters think "small government," what they mean is tax cuts and no Obamacare. Besides that they really have no concept of regulatory capture.

This is the problem with voters of both parties, really. Republicans blame a shitty economy (or whatever) on government, and Democrats blame it on corporations. The truth is, we have a fascist economic system in which corporate/government partnerships write the rules to stifle competition and reward rent-seeking behavior.

and I think you're referring to the latter Tea Party, when Koch/Palin took it over from its Ron Paul/Rothbardian beginnings

Its shocking how many people are ignornant of the facts when it comes to this. The first modern tea party was set up by paul and his people, I know because I was one of them. then the establishment took it over for fear of people actually agreeing with crazy ideas of ron pauls like... not getting in to everyone elses conflicts and....spending within our means. crazy I know

Now a days you talk to anyone who is a tea partier, and they laugh at us and act like we didnt lay the foundation for them.

The original vote was done in an atmosphere of "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists". When merely forgetting to wear your flag lapel pin could get you branded as a freedom-hating traitor. And, as we all know Liberals=spineless wimps anyway. So of course they rubberstamped it.

The problem is, they continue to keep it alive now that the initial panic is over.

That's right Republican voters! You too can help Microsoft and Google and Yahoo get immigration laws "reformed" so that we can stop this silly H1-B dance and REALLY start sucking up every warm body from India and the Philippines and anywhere else that thinks $14,000 a year is a hell of a lot of money!

That wasn't the only reason Cantor was defeated. I voted for Brat and immigration never even crossed my mind. However much promise he had in the beginning, Cantor had been lost to DC politics. He was out of touch with his district. On the morning of the primaries he was in a coffee shop in DC.

Same here, I voted for Brat and it had nothing do with either candidates stance on immigration. It had to do with Cantor no longer representing the people of his district. He didn't send a rep to my polling place. If you read or heard the smear campaign he ran against Brat is was shameless lies. I could no longer stand a man so full of lies that he thought he could lie to me about a man who lived and worked in my area and thought I wouldn't notice. I know politicians lie but we should not stand for it.

This is what I've heard as well. 30% approval rating throughout the district. He failed to keep up his end of the bargain as a Representative, which is to, you know, actually represent the interests and needs of the district. When two thirds of your constituents hate your guts, it's hard to win any kind of election. You can do it with one third hating your guts, one third liking you even just slightly, and the remaining folks barely knowing your name. But when an overwhelming majority of voters absolute

Your average GOP voter is the same as your average democrat voter, with different parents and geography. I have never, personally, met more than one republican that didn't like science, and she was a nut-job.
Also, republican or democrat is not the dividing line for individual privacy. That's a non-partisan issue (unless you're libertarian, in which case it's your quest in life to remove all privacy violations).
I was skeptical, at first, about targeted approaches generated from big-data problems. Then I got on google fiber. There were some HUGE privacy concerns there, since they basically keep a tcpdump (minus packet contents) of all your internet history as part of your google-fiber profile for 3 days. Before that, they just knew that I was an adult male. After being on google fiber, all my internet ads changed from gaming and porno to high end computer hardware and data center products. As it turns out, I greatly prefer seeing computer hardware ads (particularly when I'm at work).
Targeted approaches bred from privacy violations aren't necessarily a bad thing, it's what people do with them that's the problem. Technologies can be used effectively to make the world a better place, or abused to make it worse, it doesn't mean the technology is inherently evil. I don't think democrats would have problem being data-mined and invited to public events surrounding global warming policy, and I doubt these GOP voters will care that they were selected by a computer to be invited to take part in something that they're interested in.

You can probably make a lot of arguments that immigration is broken in many ways but I don't see how this automatically leads to the conclusion that the fixes for what's broken are in agreement, or, even necessarily agreement on what's broken.

On some level this feels a little like astroturfing for more H1Bs if so many big companies are behind it, maybe with a little feel-good "reform" directed at some of the hardships experienced by run-of-the-mill illegals from Latin America.

Advocacy is not a scientist's job. Scientists are to describe or model reality as best they can, not attempt to change it. Changing things with technology is "engineering", and changing people's opinions with technology is "social engineering".

Scientists should be careful not to taint their reputation for objective analysis.

While Republican voters might appear to be for immigration reform by the polls, their idea of reform is vastly different than what these people are proposing.

They first want a secure border... meaning no flood of new illegals, drugs, gangs, etc.

They clearly feel lied to by democrats saying the border is the most secure ever. Just look at the 50,000 children who have just crossed since January. If you can't stop children, how do you plan on stopping the "bad guys"?

Republicans would also support more work visas -- both skilled and unskilled. They don't care about having more immigrants here. They want an orderly process which no administration has been able to provide.

Obama's blanket amnesty isn't too popular but most Republicans would be up for the debate if they were confident the problem wouldn't keep compounding itself with new illegals.

You can't secure the border. It's a mythical concept that the party is selling you so you don't pay attention to the real way to shut down illegal immigration. The entire system is driven by the employment they can gain if they can get into this country. Without that employment opportunity very few would come and those that did would leave shortly after they couldn't find a job.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to go after the employment. And that means targeting the businesses that hire them. Most of the these businesses are very well connected politically. I know several, they are all die hard republicans that support stopping illegal immigration as long as you don't go after THEM. We could stop immigration tomorrow by actually implementing, checking and enforcing some sort of national ID or cracking down heavily on fraudulent use of SSN's. But that would mean shutting down the cheap labor and there are entrenched interests that don't want the immigration to stop and don't want it to be legal. These entrenched interests have run a very successful campaign of convincing people like you that the solution is to build the Berlin wall on the Mexican border. Well here's a wake up call for you, people routinely crossed the Berlin wall and they shot people that tried.

The only way to stop illegal immigration is to take away the jobs. If you want to end illegal immigration and not maintain the status quo support real employer penalties and force the SSA to actually validate every SSN used for employment is being used by it's owner (this is damn near trivial).

As a habitually Republican leaning voter and a geek myself, I find this insulting. Of course being treated as an optimization problem for data analysts is something that happens all the time in commerce and advertising. But I am turned off by multiple disingenuous elements here. Let's name a few:

1. It isn't about "immigration reform", it's about amnesty. The Democrat agenda will do nothing to reduce illegal immigration, but rather increase it.
2. Bringing in lots of new workers is a direct cause of lower wages and more job competition and unemployment in the USA.
3. Really rich, corporate Republicans want more labor because it benefits them fiscally.
4. Lots of Democrats in general want more immigrants because it strengthens the power of the government and the welfare state, and shifts voting demographics favorably for them (e.g. when they turn Texas blue, they win the presidency for the foreseeable future).5. So the bottom line is that when they approach a presumably low information Republican voter, they will have to lie their little tails off about their agenda to get him/her to go along with their so-called "immigration reform".

This is why they have the groovy, left-leaning longhair on the web page.

They want to make this into a warm-and-fuzzy progressive issue on how cruel our current immigration system is on children, families and their Chihuahuas, as well as how "stupid" it is because all the super-smart PhDs in nuclear physics who can't get a green card but reallyreally want to come help us advance our build-out of next-generation nuclear power.

Most economists feed into the rich, corporate Republican arguments by saying that l

What surprises me more than anything else is the total silence by Black congressional leadership on "immigration reform" -- given that the low levels of educational attainment and extremely high levels of unemployment in the black community, aren't they the really big losers in the immigration reform game?

You think for a second that black congressional leadership has the well being of their constituents at heart any more than any other congressional leadership group? You have got to be joking. The best thing for the leftist political leaders is an entrenched welfare class. The more unemployment, the more welfare, the more socialized services, the more votes from the people using those services.

The problem is that we're talking amnesty BEFORE we talk border security, hence the current gold rush of illegal immigrants to get in on the action. I want amnesty completely off the table until we secure the border not just to stem the economic disaster of having all these illegal immigrants we can't take care of, but the humanitarian disaster that it's becoming, as well.

So while I'm not a tin-foil-hat wearing conspiracy theorist, I do note amongst the young technorati something of a double-standard. Surveillance, big data and privacy violations are bad when they're used to infringe social rights, but GOOD when they're used to attack people perceived as infringing social rights... C'est la vie.

But more to the point, single-issue activists ALWAYS misunderstand the voting habits of multi-issue voters. Particularly Republicans, who are not just straight-up conservatives as they are often portrayed, but often socially liberal _fiscal_ conservatives who choose not to vote based on social policy. Turning multi-issue swing voters into single-issue activists isn't a straight-forward process, even if you identify who they are.

Finally, this kind of effort makes the assumption that such voters are simply awaiting the right contact or motivation to write their congressperson and demand action. Whereas, in reality, while activists often view the disengaged as "against the cause", the reality is, in most instances, such voters just don't care about that cause.

True fiscal conservatism is often at odds with social conservatism. True fiscal conservatism isn't a bad thing - I think many Dems would actually lean more toward a purely fiscally based Republican party, but the social issues keep everyone split into their respective camps despite the similarities in fiscal policy. For example, a true free market conservative has no problem with abortion clinics. They provide a service for which there is a demand. No federal dollars are permitted to go to abortion services, although the clinics also provide everything from well baby services to OB/GYN services in rural areas that require some community funding to fully support (since it's not profitable to operate a small clinic in the middle of nowhere that only half the population + children will use.) Still, it makes monetary sense to fund those clinics at nominal levels rather than have pregnant women dying because they were unaware of ectopic pregnancies, so again, it's government money well spent. A social conservative looks at the clinic though and sees a horrible infestation of sin upon the world and has the urge to bomb it.

Another example would be the mandatory drug testing put in place in Florida for food stamp benefits. After the pilot program in which less than 2% of those tested failed the drug test and were denied benefits, it became clear that the state was losing money and the program should have been halted. (I believe it cost them $100,000 more than they saved to test everyone, even charging some people a fee for the test.) A business minded fiscal conservative would have killed the program because it cost more than it saved. A social conservative would freak out because The Undeserving could get free food if the program was cancelled.

It's this divide in thought between the two wings of the party that drives the fiscally conservative Democrats crazy. They might be willing to compromise with the Republican fiscal wing on some things, but the social wings of either party cannot compromise because they each think the other is Satan.

I think that your comments describe a larger fissure within the Republican party. With respect to social conservatives and libertarian conservatives, there just isn't as much common ground as there needs to be in order to form a political party from both groups.

By way of example, is forbidding same-sex marriage a pro-individual freedom, small-government value? No, it is not. Are Second Amendment rights an Evangelical Christian value? No, they are not. But we libertarians are supposed to clam up about certai

Our outdated immigration system does not meet Americaâ(TM)s workforce needs in a global economy. We have a system that tells talented immigrants that we don't welcome their contributions. It is a system that cannot keep the United States competitive in a global economy. The time is now for Congress to act on meaningful immigration reform that boosts the American economy and does right by American families.

It is about Illegals, in the guise of H1B Expansion. It is a bait and switch con game, and unless you've paid attention to the last couple "immigration reform" acts, you'll actually miss the point. DNC wants new voters, RNC wants suppressed wages, and they are getting together to divide the spoils while the rest of America rots.

Surveillance by government is scary because the power and resources of the government. Data collection by large private corporations is scary because these corporations have privacy rights and their profit motive to get you every which way and how. Data collection of underfunded powerless advocacy group should not be compared to the first two.

This sounds like an interesting method by which individual problems, such as immigration reform, might be solved, but we must recognize that the root cause of disfunction in DC today is money; that bribery in US politics is now legal and that the politicians see it as the norm. As a result, they -- particularly those in the federal government -- almost never care about what their constituents think: in 94-95% of all cases all they have to do is raise more money than their political opponents so that they can outspend them all in every next election.

When seen in this light, it becomes clear that issues such as immigration reform are not going to be solved unless those who fund our politicians also agree. Those donors are big corporations and very rich people, and in this case they seem to think that immigration reform will likely lead to higher wages and thus less profit, so they will tell the politicians to vote aginst any such reform or else their money will diverted to the next politician in line who will vote against it. The politicians think they have no choice in the matter, but that's also how they got elected in the first place (by doing what their donors told them to do).

So, anyone who thinks that the politicians they vote for should be acting primarily in the interests of their constituents, instead of the rich and powerful, should realize that we first all need to act together to get money our of politics. And it can be done! [wolf-pac.com] After that DC will once again start to get things done.

These folks simply do not understand that the underlying goal is to drive U.S. wages to third world levels by introducing large labor surpluses. Not just unskilled/low skill labor, either. They want to greatly expand work visas for skilled and highly skilled workers to reduce labor costs and increase profits. Anyone who does not understand this needs to take some J.C. basic Economics courses. And, for those who talk about expanding the economy to accommodate millions of new workers; how's that working for you?

These folks simply do not understand that the underlying goal is to drive U.S. wages to third world levels by introducing large labor surpluses.

It is unlikely that any surplus of labor would lead employers to pay significantly less than the productivity of a worker, especially in sectors such as computer programming where barriers to entry are low and new firms can rapidly form.

It is possible that labor surpluses could actually lower the prices of goods and services in general, which can benefit consumers.

For some reason the media, the left and even republican leadership think immigration reform requires amnesty. You'll never get the law and order republican types to agree that those who broke the law should benefit where those who obeyed the law get stuck in south America. It's just not going to happen. Leave amnesty off the table and immigration reform would pass like grease lighting.

I am Data Jesus and I have come to intelligently design a new kingdom....

Hey, there are plenty of Christians who have no problem with the idea that the classification algorithms use evolutionary algorithms to optimize their results. It's just that they're unwilling to assume that the objective function is undesigned.

1) You're full of crap, because BOTH parties don't like anyone who isn't a lobbyist or fundraising donor.

2) This is a dangerous precedent, no matter who does it or they target - I get enough political spam as it is. Last thing I need is for a bunch of politically-motivated ideologues to harass me in a targeted way** because they think I might be a useful-but-unwitting pawn in their efforts. If you think this will stop with some party faction looking for like-minded people, you're deluded. Next they'll reach out to independents and no-party types, and possibly even further out.

The ** up there means I'd be the perfect demographic for TFA, in spite of being registered as "no party" in my state. My religious persuasion is shared with most Hispanic folks, so yeah - I can see 'em bugging the hell out of me to follow whatever soundbites they want concerning immigration. Again, and I reiterate: I'll do my own thinking and actions, so fuck them.

As disgusting as it is, it's not a precedent. Party apparatus, political consultants, PAC's, lobbyists, etc. have been doing this for years, and have plenty of money to throw at it. Other than that it's the usual Silicon Valley hype. Since it comes from SV they (and people who fall for it) go ooh, ahh if it's from SV it must be some brilliantly innovative idea. It's an open question whether or not the SV hype artists believe it themselves. Scarily, I suspect they do, but if you want actual expertise in this

but the Republican did just that, but the Democrats killed the US particle accelerator program. I was one (of hundreds) working on the SSC design at the time by the way. Of course, the SSC was located in Texas.....

> something that might shed light on the mysteries of the atom/universe/big bang.

Something like the Super Collider? That would be the archetypal Republican, Ronald Reagan. The space station? Reagan again. Increased funding for the national science foundation? Reagan. Research tax credits? Reagan.

There is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS IMMIGRATION. There is however hostility towards lawbreakers and those who ignore our constitution and borders.

Why is this simple fact apprently impossible for you people to understand?

How about this. I am coming over to your apartment this evening to eat your food, fuck your wife and children and then shit all over your floor and if you don't like it you can go fuck yourself. FUCK YOU if you are hostile to having GUESTS IN YOUR HOUSE.

I hear what you're saying about hostility towards law breakers / etc. Now, if blanket amnesty were passed (as in, no such thing as 'Illegal Immigants'), I seriously doubt that the majority of that hostility would suddenly go away. I also can't picture those same people who are simply trying to support the law be just as passionate as protecting the new citizen / aliens rights.

Perhaps I simply lack imagination.

(Also, I don't ever expect that type of law ever to be passed, nor necessarily think that's

I am coming over to your house to babysit your kids, clean your house, and do your yardwork while you get to deny me any normal workplace protections or actually submit to the gov. the cash you withold from my less than minimum wages

There is NO HOSTILITY TOWARDS IMMIGRATION. There is however hostility towards lawbreakers and those who ignore our constitution and borders.

Why is this simple fact apprently impossible for you people to understand?

Because there have been large waves of immigration many times in our country's history, and each time produces the same backlash with the same rhetoric. It doesn't matter whether the immigration is legal, what matters is that different kinds of people are moving into "your" neighborhood and changing it. You can see this right now in Europe with the backlash against legal immigrants from the Middle East. People don't get that emotional over abstract legal principles without an excuse.